In this election year, it’s cop versus cop: Akin

2015/04/29 Leave a comment

Not so sure that the dynamics will be as clear cut as presented by Akin.

There is a range of views within the police community on approaches. The Conservative one-sided (and overly simplistic) approach that runs counter to most of the evidence may not come out as well as Conservative MPs hope:

“The focus on being tough on crime — and I’ve been tough on crime, personally — but I think the focus needs to be on preventing our kids from choosing a life of crime and I don’t think that focus has been there.”

Sajjan and Blair — should Blair win his nomination fight — will help boost the Liberal profile on public safety issues. And many Conservatives couldn’t be happier. They believe a voter thinking about law and order puts their ‘X’ beside the Conservative candidate on the ballot.

“I would be just delighted,” said Daryl Kramp, an eastern Ontario Conservative MP. Kramp is the chairman of the House of Commons Public Safety and Security committee and, before a long career as a businessman, spent some time as a constable with the OPP.

Kramp, in fact, is one of at least eight Conservative MPs, including two in cabinet, to have worn a police uniform.

And that thin blue line in the House of Commons exists only on the government side. Not a single opposition MP has a background as a police officer.

“We’ve been identified as the law-and-order party and now (Bill Blair) wants to join a party that has voted against just about every measure we’ve put forward,” Kramp said Monday.

Those measures include new laws to help victims of crime, increasing sentences for some crimes, removing some judicial discretion and giving more power and resources to police.

In this election year, it’s cop versus cop | AKIN | Columnists | Opinion | Toron.

Filed under Security Tagged with , ,

Roach and Forcese: The government’s new speech crime could undermine its anti-terror strategy

2015/02/12 Leave a comment

A different and valid take:

Here’s why: the data suggests that our most promising means of combating radicalization is with on-the-ground programs that anticipate threats and steer people away from violence. Thus the RCMP has launched its new counter-violent extremism (CVE) program, an all-of-civil-society initiative designed to navigate people away from trouble in the “pre-criminal space” — that is, before they violate the law.

This is an uncertain and challenging undertaking. However, it may be the most rational response to a social problem that no prosecutor or penitentiary will ever solve, and may actually make worse. And the government’s new speech crime could undermine it. Let us illustrate why, with a very plausible hypothetical situation.

The new CVE program reaches out to a mosque, wishing to involve it and its membership. It wants people to assess honestly the merits of, and confront squarely, the Al-Qaeda-inspired world view that says Islam is under attack by “Western crusaders,” and that it is the duty of good Muslims to act in defence, even with violence. This airing of views will require, at minimum, a venue in which people can speak freely, and the mosque is asked to provide it.

The imam is aware of the new speech offence, and is worried that some of his members, though they show no propensity for violence, nevertheless hold radical views. He fears what will happen if the RCMP hear statements such as, “the use of violence in defence of Islam is just and religiously sanctified and should be supported.” Some community members are also keen to send money to groups overseas whose conduct may include acts of violence.

And so, wisely, the imam decides to consult with a local lawyer, who concludes that statements like the one above might well be seen as knowing and active encouragement of the concept of “terrorism offences in general.” And he concludes that in making these statements at the CVE meeting, the speaker may be aware that some of his fellows may commit some terrorist offence, including perhaps sending money to group listed as, or associated with, a terrorist group.

Reasonably, the lawyer concludes there is a risk that the meeting could violate the new speech crime. The RCMP’s “pre-criminal” CVE space then turns into a “criminal space.” The imam has no choice but to cancel the meeting.

Roach & Forcese: The government’s new speech crime could undermine its anti-terror strategy

Filed under Radicalization, Security Tagged with , , ,

New Anti-terrorism Bill May Fragment Community Relationships

2015/02/11 Leave a comment

Graham Hudson, in New Canadian Media, makes the valid point that much of the rhetoric and reality of C-51 may reduce the resilience within communities to combat radicalization and undermine some of the outreach efforts of the various police and security forces, key to increasing resilience:

The proposed advocacy or promotion of terrorism offence, for instance, will have a “chilling effect” on the communication of political and religious ideas within the Muslim community. While at first glance it may be seen as a net gain from the government’s perspective, fear of being associated with criminal activity may discourage community members from talking to each other about the issue of radicalization, interacting with high-risk persons in an effort to counter radicalization, or reporting information to police.  This will negatively impact the internal social dynamics of communities, including the viability of community-based programs, self-regulation and other means of “collective efficacy” that have been shown to help counter radicalization and facilitate integration into broader social networks.

New Anti-terrorism Bill May Fragment Community Relationships – New Canadian Media – NCM.

Filed under Radicalization, Security Tagged with , ,

Graeme Hamilton: Banning centre run by controversial Montreal Imam problematic in a democratic society

2015/02/09 Leave a comment

Valid:

Aurélie Campana, a political science professor at Université Laval and holder of the Canada Research Chair on Conflicts and Terrorism, said countries around the world are seeking the proper balance between respecting freedoms and thwarting radicalization.

“We are all walking a tightrope, whether in Quebec in Canada or in other countries confronted by these problems,” she said. “I don’t think anyone has found a miracle solution yet.”

But turning the danger of radicalism into an emotional political issue is a recipe for increased social tensions, she said.

“In Canada, through multiculturalism, there is a relative social peace that is not found in other countries — in France, for example,” she said. “The risk is that this law indirectly calls into question the existing social balance, and that the Muslim community is stigmatized.”

Mr. Bouazzi said he hears regularly of young Montrealers leaving to join ISIS but argues that, in the short-term, the best counterweight is to appeal to Muslim families. “They do co-operate,” he said, citing the recent example of a father who called in police after his son robbed a variety store to finance a trip to join the jihad.

He said a tough law that restricts freedoms is counterproductive. “We are really in front of a dilemma: Because we want to fight terrorism that does not agree with democracy, we’re actually destroying our democracy,” he said. “It’s very important to stay strong in these situations, because we don’t want them to win.”

Graeme Hamilton: Banning centre run by controversial Montreal Imam problematic in a democratic society

Filed under Radicalization, Security Tagged with ,

Anti-terrorism bill bars CSIS from committing ‘bodily harm,’ sexual violation

2015/02/05 Leave a comment

Sad that it has come to this that in granting additional powers, and specifying what is barred, while the intent is good, only underlines the risks of granting these powers and possible abuse, exacerbated by the lack of effective oversight:

Bill C-51 would allow CSIS to take measures within or outside Canada to reduce threats to the security of Canada, but doesn’t spell out exactly what those measures could be. The bill lists prohibited activities, barring CSIS from:

  • Intentionally or by criminal negligence cause death or bodily harm.
  • In any way trying to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
  • Violating the sexual integrity of an individual.

The bill ties “bodily harm” to its definition in the Criminal Code, which means any injury to a person that “interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature.”

Observers say it’s too early to know exactly what that section means. And, given the agency’s new ability to “disrupt” and to trigger preventative detention, they say further explanation is needed.

“We don’t know what the power to disrupt means. At first reading it seems that [CSIS] can do just about anything except bodily damage or assassination or sexual abuse,” said Roch Tassé, a spokesman for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group​.

But there are other provisions that would let CSIS request a warrant to enter any place or open anything; search, copy, remove or return any record; install or remove anything; or “do any other thing that is reasonably necessary to take those measures.”

“Basically they’ll be allowed to break the law. They’ll go to a judge to get permission to break the law,” Tassé said.

Sukanya Pillay, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the section of the bill on CSIS is confusing because “we know that you can’t get a warrant to contravene the charter.”

The prohibitions on causing bodily harm and sexual violation are also troubling. she said, because it’s not clear what they mean.

Have we learned nothing from US abuse and terror?

Anti-terrorism bill bars CSIS from committing ‘bodily harm,’ sexual violation – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under Security Tagged with

Is Harper’s terror bill terrifying — or just redundant? – Kheiriddin

2015/02/04 Leave a comment

On the remarkable political cynicism of the Government with respect to security according to Tasha Kheiriddin:

So why have the Tories chosen to create new offences instead? Three words: the 2015 election. Enforcing existing legislation isn’t sexy. You can’t take ownership of Section 46 of the Criminal Code — it’s been there for years. But you can talk ad nauseum about the new tough anti-terror laws you’ve created. It’s perfect fodder for the doorstep and a great distraction from the dismal economy — and the Conservatives know it.

And public opinion polls suggest enough Canadians are on board to make this a winning issue. A recent Nanos survey found that 66 per cent of Canadians agree with the PM that we are at war with terrorists. Sixty-five per cent of respondents agreed that the “government should have the power to remove websites or posts on the Internet that it believes support the proliferation of terrorism in Canada.” Forty-eight per cent of Canadians feel the system is not up to the task at the moment, vs. 44 per cent who believe the situation is satisfactory.

Bill C-51 neatly taps into all these concerns, while leaving a major issue unadressed: Who will be watching the watchers? According to Ottawa, there’s enough oversight already. On CTV`s Question Period, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety Roxanne James said, “We are not interested in creating needless red tape.”

That’s a slap in the face to our Five Eyes allies, all of whom have more extensive oversight mechanisms in place. Creating such measures in Canada would not be a waste of money or admission of weakness. It would be a nod to common sense — especially since C-51 does not have a sunset clause, as previous anti-terror legislation did.

Bottom line: The new bill represents electioneering at its finest. While it improves intelligence-sharing and gives authorities more powers to detain suspected terrorists, it presents privacy concerns, curbs freedom of speech, and duplicates existing offences, while foregoing any increase in oversight.

Canada’s existing treason law — the one the Crown used to hang Louis Riel

Filed under Government, Security Tagged with ,

The perils of counterterror overreach – Yakabuski

2015/02/03 Leave a comment

Valid points by Konrad Yakabuski:

Since the attacks, there have been more than 200 similar outbursts among students, mostly Muslim teenagers protesting during a new mandatory moment of silence in public schools in memory of the January terror victims. The French government’s response to this backlash from minority students is a 250-million-euro plan to enhance the teaching of “the values of the Republic” in public schools.

The measures also include designating Dec. 9 as a new official “Day of Secularism” in honour of the 1905 law enshrining the separation of church and state. The same law guarantees freedom of religion, but that aspect gets short shrift from the French establishment and opinion-makers, for whom the law is primarily a guarantee of freedom from religion.

If France was really being true to its republican values, however, it would be celebrating its pluralism after the attacks. The reason French law bans the collection of census data on race, ethnicity and religion is not because the state is supposed to be officially blind to such distinctions; at its origin, the law was meant to shield minorities from discrimination.

Faced with a growing Muslim minority and what Prime Minister Manuel Valls recently called a “territorial, social, ethnic apartheid,” France’s adherence to its own values is being challenged. Many French believe Islam and republicanism are incompatible. But what’s really incompatible are republicanism and anti-terror laws that criminalize unrepublican opinions.

Canada is facing largely the same challenge as France. Let’s hope we strike a better balance.

The perils of counterterror overreach – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Radicalization, Security Tagged with , ,

ICYMI: CSE’s Levitation project: Does mass surveillance prevent terrorist attacks?

2015/02/03 Leave a comment

Valid questions:

Questions about the effectiveness of mass surveillance are being raised as the Canadian government plans to introduce new legislation Friday to give security agencies broader powers. The new rules come in the wake of two attacks on Canadian soldiers last year as well as a growing number of extremist incidents around the world.

Wesley Wark, a national security expert, says that no matter how many “interesting needles” come out of the haystack of online data, spy agencies still need to translate that to “usable intelligence” – meaning something they can act on.

“At the end of the day, one piece of good intelligence might be worth it all,” says Wark, who is currently at the University of Ottawa.

In its 2012 presentation to its “Five Eyes” spying partners — the group that includes the U.S., U.K., New Zealand and Australia — the CSE mentioned two important successes from the Levitation project.

The first involved the discovery of an uploaded document that outlined the hostage strategy of AQIM, the North African branch of al-Qaeda. That strategy was “disseminated widely,” including by the CIA to its overseas counterparts, the CSE presentation says.

U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald says Canadians need to ask tough questions about how effective mass surveillance is in light of two attacks on soldiers. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

Cyber analysts also unearthed a video of a German hostage from a previously unknown target. That hostage died in late May 2012, months after spies came across the video.

Edgar Fritz Raupach, an engineer working in Nigeria, was killed by his hostage-takers when local soldiers — who were unaware of Raupach’s presence — attacked the captors’ hideout in an unrelated operation.

Wark cautions that the document — as a presentation by CSE to its spying partners — is inevitably biased toward touting the most favourable results. Ultimately, he says, success in this business depends on whether the findings were timely, didn’t consume too many resources and were useful.

“These Canadian documents suggest it can pay off,” says Wark. “So, does it pay off? Is it proportionate to the resources we’re putting into it? Are there different ways to do it?”

CSE’s Levitation project: Does mass surveillance prevent terrorist attacks? – Canada – CBC News.

Filed under Security Tagged with , , ,

ISIS threat could mute objections to expanded anti-terror laws, critics fear – Politics – CBC News

2014/10/20 Leave a comment

Will be interesting to see if the Bill is narrowly focussed on the stated gaps or whether, as is often its want, the Government over-reaches to the point of provoking opposition.

The oversight issue is critical as more powers are provided. We have seen the risks of lack of oversight in the US, with the CIA essentially spying on Congress among other things:

Independent MP Brent Rathgeber agrees that the current international crisis and threat of homegrown terror “will provide cover for the government to expand the roles of CSEC and CSIS, and what they share with the Five Eyes.”

The Five Eyes is the collective name for Canada and its intelligence-sharing allies — the U.S., Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

Rathgeber stressed some of those powers may very well be necessary, “given that the ISIS threat must be taken seriously.”

The issue, he said, is to balance those national security concerns with privacy rights.”

Security agencies unchecked will grow both in times of imminent threat and in times of comparative security,” he told CBC News. “Therefore it is incumbent on civilian oversight and Parliament to provide checks and balances.”

Even so, he said he’s not expecting to see any increased oversight powers in the new bill — and “given the legitimate climate of fear, or at least concern,” he said, “the public will be complacent.”

By a twist of procedural timing, MPs may find themselves with an opportunity to debate greater oversight when a private members bill, sponsored by Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray, comes before the House this fall.

The bill would create a special parliamentary committee to monitor legislative, regulatory, policy and administrative framework for intelligence and national security in Canada, and review activities of all federal agencies, including CSIS.

Murray told CBC News she “has no problem in principle” with giving CSIS more leeway to keep track of suspected terrorists abroad.But shes not ready to give up on transparency and accountability.

“The absence of parliamentary oversight and review mechanism for our security agencies means an absence of accountability to the Canadian public.”

She’ll need to the support of the government to pass her bill, however, which doesn’t seem to be forthcoming.

“There is robust oversight of national security agencies in Canada,” Public Safety spokesman Jason Tamming told CBC News.

“We are always focused on protecting the rights of Canadians,” he said, adding the government appointed a former Ontario NDP MPP to the civilian oversight body in 2009.

“We don’t need to strike any new committees to create duplicative oversight.”

As to the last point, given the overall Government approach (e.g., cyberbullying bill which included increased surveillance powers), impossible to take seriously.

ISIS threat could mute objections to expanded anti-terror laws, critics fear – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under Radicalization, Security Tagged with , ,

Wesley Wark: The rise and fall of Arthur Porter

2014/09/30 Leave a comment

Wesley Wark on Arthur Porter, the disgraced former chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Pulls no punches and rightly so:

The lesson of Arthur Porter is simple. He was exactly the wrong kind of person to appoint to SIRC: No political experience, no knowledge of the world of security and intelligence, no capacity for thoughtful, non-partisan analysis, no moral compass. Now it behooves the current government and its successors to give serious thought to what the right kind of person should be.

A start could be made by actually appointing a SIRC chairman. The SIRC chairmanship has been vacant since Chuck Strahl’s resignation in January and the committee is down to three members, rather than the statutory five. Any fresh appointment to the SIRC chair should involve a much-more transparent process, involving genuine consultation with opposition parties and hearings before the appropriate Parliamentary committee. In that way, we might avoid a future man-on-the-make and actually give SIRC greater credibility and clout.

Wesley Wark: The rise and fall of Arthur Porter

Filed under Security Tagged with , ,

Newer posts →